Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England.

Al-Qa’eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, ‘We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.’

Many secular Westerners who have a hard time understanding how anyone could seriously embrace religious beliefs tend to discount the idea that a religious faith could pose a threat to Western societies. But those same secular Westerners are not reproducing enough to replace their numbers while at the same time the Muslims are reproducing much more rapidly. Demography becomes destiny.

For Western Europe, which is both closer to Muslim lands and suffering from a more severe birth dearth than the United States, demographic trends are the biggest threat. Yet most of Western Europe's politically correct elites refuse to acknowledge the threat. The EU mandarins even go so far as to misrepresent the ethnicity and religious beliefs of the people who are attacking Jews in Europe One reason for their denial is that they do not want to admit that their own secular culture does not have universal appeal. Another reason is the lingering effects of Marxism. The rest of the world is viewed in class terms with poor non-Europeans seen as victims of racism and colonialism.

If the intellectuals of Western societies do not regain some sense of belief in their own cultures and ethnicities as things worth defending then they are going to be outnumbered and eventually ruled over by people who do not suffer from self-inflicted loathing of their own identities.

For hostile moslems to blame alqaeda for using immigrants for terror bombings is odd in a way. Are they against the killing, or would they approve if non-immigrants or non-muslims could have been recruited, for the mass murders? By now, it may be that more than 80% of the top two dozen mass-murderers in American history have been immigrants. This would include the 9-11 perpetrators as immigrants, since they had no intention of leaving the country ever again. A pattern with these terrorists is that, once it has been made clear that they have targeted a particular site, and failed the first time to do sufficient damage, they may feel obliged to try again. What does this mean for the U.S. capitol? It would actually be poetic justice if those who have been most responsible for failure to stem a hostile or damaging foreign influx, were themselves to take the attack.

There are nothing like 8 million moslems in the US. More and more, I think that there's a cause that brings left and right, indeed almost _all_ SAmericans, together - innumeracy.

Calling the 9-11 perps 'immigrants' is nonsense. There are some real problems assciated with mass immigration of low-skill Mexicans, which is the kind of immigration we actually experience, but terrorisim is not one of them. Lying is a bigger problem than they will ever be. Stop it.

The notion of Muslims conquering America - from the inside or the outside - is ludicrous and innumerate. But the notion of Muslims seriously changing the character of Europe is not ludicrous or innumerate at all.

Or at least France. Muslims are currently 10% of the French population, or 6mm. France still takes in around 40,000 net immigrants a year (0.66 net migrants/yr according to the CIA factbook); that's probably an undercount of the total increase in the immigrant population, since there is some out-migration and I would guess that this outmigration is mostly ethnically French; however, some immigrants are from non-Muslim Africa, some immigrants are from Ukraine or Romania or other East/Central European countries, and some are from Vietnam and other points in East Asia. So assume 40,000 is the number of Muslim immigrants per year. Next: what is the natural rate of increase of the Muslim population in France? If it looks anything like the natural rate of increase of Israeli Arabs, it'll be around 3% per year. I'd be shocked to learn it's less than 2%. If it's 3%, then virtually the entire natural increase of the French population (0.39%/yr, according to the CIA factbook) is attributable to the Muslim population. Finally, you have, according to the article you cite, 50,000 conversions to Islam per year. Assuming these trends are sustainable (which, of course, they may not be - but of course they could accelerate as well as decelerate) the Muslim percentage of the population of France will double in 20 years, to 20% of the country.

The numbers aren't precisely the same anywhere else in Europe. The Netherlands is 9% non-Western (Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese, Indonesian) and probably the majority of that number is Muslim. But they have a higher net migration rate (2.91/1000) so assuming similar conversion rates to France (as a percentage of the non-Muslim population) and assuming 5% current Muslim population, they may get to 20% Muslim in more like 25 years rather than 20. Germany and Britain are further away; the CIA factbook says Germany is currenly 3.7% Muslim and the UK 2.5% Muslim. But Germany has negative population growth; assuming its Muslim population is growing at that same 3% internal rate, that means the non-Muslim population is shrinking more rapidly. Again, making comparable assumptions to the one I made about France, Germany is 20% Muslim in 30 years, and Britain is 20% Muslim in 35 years.

Are these assumptions vulnerable? Of course. If Muslims are intermarrying with Christians, and the kids are assimilating to the majority culture rather than to the Muslim minority, then nothing like the above projections will come true. If Muslim birth rates are lower than I'm assuming - or if they decline sharply in the next decade - then nothing like the above projections will come true. Changing my assumptions about in-migration and conversions also has an impact.

But the bottom line is: should Europe be worried? Can the demographic trend still be reversed? If it cannot, is it something to worry about? Will ideological groups who seek to use the Muslim population of Europe to effect fundamental change in European culture and politics succeed, or will the Muslim population of Europe blend into larger European culture, resulting in some changes but leaving the most important things about that culture intact? Looking at the world today, it's very hard to be sanguine.

This is not necessarily an argument against immigration generally, or even against multi-racial societies, or even against multi-culturalism. No one in Britain is worried about the Sikh, Hindu, Jewish or Chinese minorities; none is as big as the Muslim population, but none is insignificant and all maintain a certain degree of separate communal identity. In France and the Netherlands, the Christian black and both Christian and non-Christian East Asian immigrant populations have been assimilated better than the Muslim population. That's not to say all is well; the French have problems with African, Romanian and Russian criminal gangs, for example. But there is no public concern about African, Romanian or Russian disloyalty to the French state, or that these groups are out to purposefully alter French society and politics. That is a worry with the Muslim population.

Is that something we should worry about in the United States with respect to immigration? Certainly not with respect to Muslims; there are far too few, and there will be far too few for a very long time, regardless of whether current trends continue. What about the Mexican immigration - the people we actually are importing? Are they something to worry about in terms of cultural cohesion? It doesn't feel that way from where I sit - but I'm in New York, not California, and things may seem rather different out there.

I confined my own commentary to Western Europe. Yes, the Muslims are exaggerating the number of Muslims in the United States. I should have said something about that. But I was quoting the Saudi guy more to give a sense what major Wahhabi clerics are telling millions of Muslims.

However, Muslims can become swing voters in elections and be catered to politically far in excess of their numbers. Arab Muslims in Florida probably gave George W. Bush the margin he needed to win that state and so Bush's support of the end of profiling of Muslims in airports paid off for Bush in his election. Well, what all followed from that?

As for Europe: They probably are going to admit Turkey into the EU. Said move is incredibly stupid and not just because of Islam. Turkey doesn't do well in the IQ leagues and has a high level of corruption too. Also, Muslim immigration may well accelerate as Muslims fan out across the EU and create anchor communities to support more illegal immigration. This same is happening with Hispanics fanning out across the US. The lowering of barriers for labor migration across Europe is enabling more illegal immigration.

As for Noah's 3% growth rate possibility for Muslims in France: That would lead to more than a tripling of Muslim numbers in 40 years. If the growth rate was 2% it would lead to more than a doubling in 40 years. Combine that with a shrinking white population and the Muslims could be a majority in France before the end of the century.

However, a group does not need to become an absolute majority in order to radically change a country. For example, note how in post-Saddam Iraq so many women are now wearing headscarves in public because they are afraid of being attacked if they don't. Well, Muslim extremists could start enforcing dress codes in European Muslim communities and then branch out to enforce dress codes in neighboring areas and on subways and busses. Also, politicians would start catering to them far before they became a majority.

It is perfectly true, and makes perfect definitional sense to refer to the 9-11 operatives as immigrants. The strict definition of an immigrant, is someone who moves into a country with no intention of moving back out. A larger definition includes tourists, even those who stay only for a few hours. In either case, they fit the definition, and truth and good sense require just that. What is untrue, and makes no sense at all, is to ~define~ immigrants as being only those with no hostile intentions. Those who try to define all immigrants as innocent and blameless by nature, are placing them in a subhuman category, in which morality can never be applied. If immigrants can't be blamed for anything, that means only one thing; they've been classified outside of morality and outside humanity.

Yes, Europe has a long-term problem on its hand. I visited Germany on business a few years ago. Most Germans I saw were middle-age to old. Almost all kids I saw were of middle-eastern lineage. Given that some parts of Europe are 10% muslim immigrants (France, Belgium), the percentage of kids in Europe who are of muslim parents is probably higher (20%, 30%. ?). I don't think SENS is going to come in time to save Europe (although it might). If I were a European, I would be trying to get lots and lots of Chinese and Hindu Indians to immigrate to Europe.

The total number of muslims in the U.S. is around 6 million. 2 million of those are black muslims (Nation of Islam) which most of the other 4 million muslim immigrants regard as a cult. I don't think that the U.S. faces the same problem as Europe. We have a higher indiginous birth rate and have many non-muslim immigrants as well. Islam will never be a majority, or even a significant minority religion in the U.S.

The question I have (because I have no idea) is; are white or East Asian people converting to Islam in large numbers anywhere in the world. From what I understand, the answer is no. Correct me if I am wrong.

My impression is that the muslims are kind of like the Magog (in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda). They reproduce and expand everywhere, but they do not produce much in the way of technological, economic, or artistic human endevour. Is this impression correct?

"If this minority population grew for the next 50 years at a rate of 2% per annum (a high rate, and one that doesn’t seem to be supported by signs of an ongoing demographic transition), while the remainder of the population shrunk at a rate of 0.5% per annum (also a high rate of decrease, and one that doesn’t seem likely to be achieved for a while given generally high French fertility rates), at the end of this 50 year period the total French population would have shrunk by 9%, and France’s Muslim population would amount to roughly one-fifth of the total. You’d have to wait for a century to approach a position of parity between the two populations, assuming the same unrealistic growth rates. This is definitely not any sort of imminent threat[.]"

This prediction, further, assumes a few things: that Muslim fertility rates in France won't fall; that non-Muslim fertility rates in France won't rise; that other sources of immigrants (Latin America, central/eastern Europe, China) won't become prominent; and, most importantly, that there won't be any Muslim assimilation into French culture. Considering that most young women support the headscarf ban, religious practice is low outside of a minority, and only a minority speak Arabic or Turkish or whatever ancestral language, this last one in particular seems problematic.

A 2 percent growth rate for 50 years would be 1.02 raised to the 50th power. So the 6 million or so Muslims in France would then be 2.69 times more numerous or 16.1 million. How could a 60.4 million population shrink by 9 percent total and have the 16.1 mil be only 20 percent? I don't get it. Seems to me the Muslims would be 29% of the French population at that point.

In any case, why should any Western nation inflict itself with any Muslim immgration at all? Their religion's base text leaves no room for the separation of mosque and state and is obviously not compatible with Western culture and politics.

Another way of looking at growth rates is doubling time. At a 2% annual growth rate a population will double in 36 years. So in little more than a century a population will go up by a factor of 8. At a 2% annual growth rate a population will increase by an order of magnitude in 117 years.

If a trend is bad and it can be stopped then why let the trend continue?

I'm also few curious as to where they came up with the statistics of 50 thousand French a year converting to Islam. That figure only amounts to 0.1% of the French Christian population of ~50M, but even that figure is spectacularly high--I've heard figures in the same range which suggest a total of 50K converts in total.

Further, the Muslim birthrate far exceeds that of native Europeans and Americans, so that one-fifth of all children born in France have a father from North Africa and Muhammad is one of the most common given names in the United Kingdom.

On the other side of the Channel, where five million Muslims live and create one-third of all newborn “French” babies, an early campaign of Islamic terror was initiated by a Tunisian named Fouad Salah, who was convicted in 1992 of setting off bombs that killed thirteen Frenchmen in terrorist campaign during 1985-86.

The non-Muslim population is aging and declining. Its fertility rate is said to be close to 1.4 children for every woman, just like in most neighboring European countries (e.g., Germany: 1.3; Italy and Spain: 1.2).

The Muslim population, however, is young and rising: its average fertility rate is said to be of three or four children for every woman. When it comes to the youngest age bracket - residents under the age of 25 - the overall ratio of Muslims rises significantly (25% to 30%).

I've found other articles making that claim. Anyone know if it is true?

A 2 percent growth rate for 50 years would be 1.02 raised to the 50th power. So the 6 million or so Muslims in France would then be 2.69 times more numerous or 16.1 million. How could a 60.4 million population shrink by 9 percent total and have the 16.1 mil be only 20 percent? I don't get it. Seems to me the Muslims would be 29% of the French population at that point.

Well, that was a ballpark figure. Turns out to be in the same range.

In any case, why should any Western nation inflict itself with any Muslim immgration at all? Their religion's base text leaves no room for the separation of mosque and state and is obviously not compatible with Western culture and politics.

Considering that Roman Catholicism until the mid-20th century was opposed to secular Western individualism--remember the church's problems with the Third Republic in France, and its sympathy for corporatist fascist regimes in southern Europe--I'm skeptical of this thesis. Formal theology doesn't seem to matter so much as what the masses do.

Another way of looking at growth rates is doubling time. At a 2% annual growth rate a population will double in 36 years. So in little more than a century a population will go up by a factor of 8. At a 2% annual growth rate a population will increase by an order of magnitude in 117 years.

If a trend is bad and it can be stopped then why let the trend continue?

You're making the assumption that these trends will continue indefinitely, unmodified by the factors which I've mentioned above. For that matter, we're all making the assumption that rate of growth exists at all.

Considering that the birthrates of countries like Japan, S Korea, and several countries in Europe are far below replacement levels, and that groups which practice first-cousin marriage include those with the very highest birthrates in the world, is nature giving us a clue as to what is needed? Suppose that genetic screening were sufficient to avoid rates of birth defects that were importantly higher, would the reproductive effort be elicited by promoting first-cousin marriage in the countries where there are too few births? Another suggestion; let the countries which have free, or very cheap, post-secondary education charge full-cost, and lend the money for this, but only to those who are married and have conceived by some time during their third year of college, others being ineligible for the loans. The justification for this being that, if they wish to have society aggrandize their future, and by means of aggression, they should be willing to ensure the future of their society by making the necessary effort, even if it happens that they must divorce and give up the children for adoption, in some cases.

Only whites in general, and Chrisitians in particular, ALLOW their culture and race to be smeared and to VOLUNTARILY become a minority in their own land. Talk about stupid!
The BS of civil rights for women and minorities could ONLY be achieved in our lands. If Muslims became the majority in Europe and America, women would IMMEDIATELY be reduced to cattle. If you are that DUMB to not believe that, look around at the ones that are here. Women covered from head to toe or not allowed the same respect as men. CATTLE!!!! Those who disagree would be killed.
Witout white Christians, most advancement would end. People just ASSUME these things they have now are going to be there forever. If population shifts continue and the insane immigration nightmare continues, it will be the end.
This is why I DETEST multiculturalism and diversity dogma. It is all a fake lie to weaken Christianity and white people in general. I hope you cretins who push for such a thing get just desserts.
Immigration MUST be cut back on dramatically; from Mexico and the third-world in general. IF you allow in too much third world, you BECOME third world. Many American cities ALREADY look like an AL-Qeada truck bombing. Imagine if this garbage is allowed to continue?
Solution: Increase European immigration while reducing immigration in general. America can fall. Many people are trying to do just that. Wake up.

White Christians have advanced human culture and played a positive role in the world and have gotten way too much grief for their efforts.

But let’s not go overboard. Most scientists are atheists, not Christians. There have been many Jewish scientists. Indian and Chinese scientists as well. There have been famous Indian mathematicians and world famous Chinese mathematicians.

I’d guess over half the scientific papers published in the US today have an author who is not “white”. (Lots of Asians.)

“Immigration MUST be cut back on dramatically; from Mexico and the third-world in general.”

On this we agree. I would prefer only merit-based immigration. Merit would be established by career success, educational level, and moderate fluency in English.

Serge Trifkovic's figures are overblown. I've seen, in the Crooked Timber discussion relating to my original post, statistics saying that people of immigrant background are responsible for one-sixth of the births in France. One-third would assume that the demographic slowdown recorded by INED isn't taking place. Gurfinkel's post is interesting, but I'm skeptical how much is polemic and how much is accurate.

Bob M: I'm not sure why Latin Americans are excluded from the category of "Western." The countries of the Southern Cone--Argentina, Chile, Uruguay--are settler states just like Canada, Israel, Australia, or New Zealand, like for that matter southern Brazil. All of Latin America is nominally Christian, and mostly Catholic, with the exception of some small Jewish and Muslim minorities. All Latin Americans, with the exception of declining native and immigrant minorities, speak European languages, largely Spanish and Portuguese. Why isn't the whole region Western?

So can you point to more authoritative sources for the percentage of births or the percentage of population under 25 who are Muslim in France? When I go looking I come across figures in the ballpark of those I quote above.

On the discussion thread in question http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001672.html, Charles copeland refers to two URLs from _Le Figaro_:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20040414.FIG0152.html

http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20040414.FIG0153.html

Unfortunately the links are defunct now, but the first provided the statistic I mentioned.

A thought: If 7% of the population (French Muslims) have an average fertility rate of 3 children born per woman, and if the fertility rate of the total French population is ~1.9, wouldn't that mean that French Muslims would be responsible for a tenth of the births in France, and that the average fertility rate of the remainder of the French population would be just below 1.8? French Muslim fertility rates aren't that high, after all, and they do seem to be falling: http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP898.pdf In the previous cited documents, INSEE quotes a fertility rate of 1.72 for women of French nationality and 2.80 for women of foreign nationality.

The only problem that I can see with the INSEE statistics is that they don't track people of immigrant background who've become French citizens. The effect, though, still isn't enough to push the fertility rate for people of French stock down to 1.3-1.4 children per woman. One-tenth of the population remaining is French Muslim with an average fertility rate of 3 children per woman would leave 1.5 children born to women of non-Muslim stock. So, you'd have a fertility rate for people of non-Muslim background on the same level as Canada, the Scandinavian states, and Britain--all relatively high-fertility countries--and one-fifth of the births to people of Muslim background.

They say, "If you cant beat 'em, Join 'em".
Islam is destined to become a majority. It is not only because of immigration or birth rate. It is because of Conversion too- Islam's universal appeal to the System of God. I would recommend that you all study Islam before putting your racist comments here. Read Islam's history and its demography. Cant you all see? It is Destined to Rule! God is the only Power and He will make His system rule the world AGAIN.
Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon You All!

The rise of Muslims, in terms of population, is inevitable in Europe. I see it as a blessing because such immigration will help unite the Western and Eastern world. There will be problems and it won't always be an easy transition. However, this is how history and the progression of humanity works. One group remains dominate in one area before another comes and either dominates it or finds a way to merge with whoever was previously dominate. We should accept that such things are inevitable.

I've thought of converting to Islam because it is a good Religion. A bad religion kills the race that embraces it. A good religion expands it. Western liberal democracy is really a cancer and poison that kills societies that embrace it. By liberating women, western liberal democracy allows them to have careers, education and not bother reproducing. Islam opresses women forcing them to breed but thereby saving the race.
As a White European knowing my own people I would not dare become muslim because sooner or later the Whites will wake up and basically just kill all the muslims. That is because they are an ignorant savage, murderous people with no conscience that would just see it as sport to kill women and children. Just as western soldiers regard it as sport to kill muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afterall we have rained down fire and death on our own people throughout history and called it just and righteous. Remember in the thirty years war 68% of Germans slaughtered each other. The future is terrifying and will most likely follow what happened in Yugoslavia at minimum. But this time who will intervene- probably no one.